No Universe is the Universe

[gautam]

No Universe

Nothing is something (pardon my linguistic limitations, it is not really something) that is there by its absence. It is not something that is not there by its absence. Though it is nothing and only nothing that causes something to happen. But something by happening doesn’t eliminate nothingness wholly or partly. Nothingness is boundless. We usually fail to visualize it as to our understanding; nothingness is something that comes with the disappearance of something we are habituated to recognize by presence.
Nothingness is not big or small. It has neither a beginning nor an end. It is in fact only nothing and nothing else than nothing that has no beginning or no end. QED, something that has no beginning or end is simply and only nothing.
Coming to our universe, the question arises as to whether we should take as something, that is there or nothing that is there. To begin with, I will not categorize it as nothing, firstly, to avoid ire of my fellow thinkers who are seriously digging out the truth of this universe and secondly, to give a chance to ‘something’ that proves and supports our existence. Let me begin with the assumption that our universe is something that happened. It means that the universe was not there at some point of time or at some point of no time.
I would like to recall here an important feature of the Mest Theory of everything that says that space or space-time is internal to the matter and not external as commonly believed. It is not the gravitational force of the matter that shall make the space disappear with the contracting universe rather the space will have no space to exist as the matter contracts or disappears. That is only to say that no void or vacuum or space is left behind in the total absence of the matter. What is left behind is nothing. Expanding this more, we come to a conclusion that there is nothing left out side of the universe whether its contracts, expands or remains as it is.
God, like nothing and unlike anything, is here, there and everywhere by His absence. One appearance and god will no more be God. To my mind, we must understand the absence of this universe to really know its existence, more so if we assume it to have a beginning and an end. The universe with a beginning and an end is something that is not boundless. In that case it would not be self-contained. The laws of such a universe can transcend its boundaries. If this universe is something then the question arises as to what was there before the universe was not there and what will be left when the universe will not be there. A void that will be created with the disappearance of this universe will be something and not 'nothing'. Logically, there will be still some kind of left behind universe. That makes the whole proposition absurd.
Universe is therefore nothing but a vision of consciousness. Nothing is happening .It is just that it seems so to a conscious being.
In absence of consciousness in this universe, there will be no light: no transfer of information and no universe.

[Bogie]

No Universe

Nothing is something (pardon my linguistic limitations, it is not really something) that is there by its absence. It is not something that is not there by its absence. Though it is nothing and only nothing that causes something to happen. But something by happening doesn’t eliminate nothingness wholly or partly. Nothingness is boundless. We usually fail to visualize it as to our understanding; nothingness is something that comes with the disappearance of something we are habituated to recognize by presence.
Nothingness is not big or small. It has neither a beginning nor an end. It is in fact only nothing and nothing else than nothing that has no beginning or no end. QED, something that has no beginning or end is simply and only nothing.
Coming to our universe, the question arises as to whether we should take as something, that is there or nothing that is there. To begin with, I will not categorize it as nothing, firstly, to avoid ire of my fellow thinkers who are seriously digging out the truth of this universe and secondly, to give a chance to ‘something’ that proves and supports our existence. Let me begin with the assumption that our universe is something that happened. It means that the universe was not there at some point of time or at some point of no time.
I would like to recall here an important feature of the Mest Theory of everything that says that space or space-time is internal to the matter and not external as commonly believed. It is not the gravitational force of the matter that shall make the space disappear with the contracting universe rather the space will have no space to exist as the matter contracts or disappears. That is only to say that no void or vacuum or space is left behind in the total absence of the matter. What is left behind is nothing. Expanding this more, we come to a conclusion that there is nothing left out side of the universe whether its contracts, expands or remains as it is.
God, like nothing and unlike anything, is here, there and everywhere by His absence. One appearance and god will no more be God. To my mind, we must understand the absence of this universe to really know its existence, more so if we assume it to have a beginning and an end. The universe with a beginning and an end is something that is not boundless. In that case it would not be self-contained. The laws of such a universe can transcend its boundaries. If this universe is something then the question arises as to what was there before the universe was not there and what will be left when the universe will not be there. A void that will be created with the disappearance of this universe will be something and not 'nothing'. Logically, there will be still some kind of left behind universe. That makes the whole proposition absurd.
Universe is therefore nothing but a vision of consciousness. Nothing is happening .It is just that it seems so to a conscious being.
In absence of consciousness in this universe, there will be no light: no transfer of information and no universe.

I hope you haven't been waiting for this response ... it is a long time coming but then, if we are to see things as you describe, the wait is inconsequential.

The point I want to pursue is the concept of boundaries that your post implies. In your words,"The universe with a beginning and an end is something that is not boundless. In that case it would not be self-contained. The laws of such a universe can transcend its boundaries."

Take that from the other perspective, a universe without a beginning and that won't end is something that is boundless. It that case it would be self-contained and it cannot transcend its boundaries. Everything in it would be natural and the natural laws that govern it are the laws of physics. We just don't know all the laws yet and so here we are learning them.

[BETTY3]

Lots of food for thought but needs some work...sorry

[mkirkpatrick]

All there really is is LIFE.all else is an illusion,what then is LIFE?


regards michael.